A Timeless Argument about Creation

Have you heard about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? FSM is a four-month-old "religion" founded on the belief that the universe was created by an invisible flying clump of spaghetti and meatballs. This blob of pasta, FSM's "followers" say, uses its "noodly appendage" to play an ongoing role in human affairs. For example, it tampers with carbon-dating tests to make the planet seem older than it is, so that any evidence of evolution is actually the work of the spaghetti monster.

FSM was concocted in June by Bobby Henderson, a recent college graduate with a degree in physics. When the Kansas Board of Education took up the question of teaching intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, Henderson wrote an open letter (posted at www.venganza.org) demanding equal classroom time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well.

As religious spoofs go, it wasn't exactly Monty Python's "Life of Brian," but it was good for a chuckle or two. No doubt that was all the reaction that Henderson was expecting. If so, he underestimated the eagerness of many Darwinists to paint supporters of intelligent design as either moronic Bible Belters or conniving religious fanatics. Henderson's "religion" became a cult hit, promoted on other websites and covered with relish in the press. The Washington Post reprinted Henderson's letter verbatim. A New York Times story was headlined, "But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?"

At least Henderson couched his disdain for intelligent design in humor. Other Darwinists, many steeped in ideological antipathy to religion, resort to insult and invective.

"It is absolutely safe to say," the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading Darwinist, has written, "that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane." Liz Craig, a member of the board of Kansas Citizens for Science, summarized her public-relations strategy in February: "Portray them" -- intelligent design advocates -- "in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc."

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that there could be reasonable challenges to his theory of natural selection -- including challenges from religious quarters. According to the sociologist and historian Rodney Stark, when "The Origin of Species" first appeared in 1859, the Bishop of Oxford published a review in which he acknowledged that natural selection was the source of variations within species, but rejected Darwin's claim that evolution could account for the appearance of different species in the first place. Darwin read the review with interest, acknowledging in a letter to a friend that "the bishop makes a very telling case against me."

How things have changed. When John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee in 1925, religious fundamentalists fought to keep evolution out of the classroom because it was at odds with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story. Today, Darwinian fundamentalists fight to keep the evidence of intelligent design in the diversity of life on earth out of the classroom, because that would be at odds with a strictly materialist view of the world. Eighty years ago, the thought controllers wanted no Darwin; today's thought controllers want only Darwin. In both cases, the dominant attitude is authoritarian and closed-minded -- the opposite of the liberal spirit of inquiry on which good science depends.

As always, those who challenge the reigning orthodoxy face repercussions. In April, the science journal Nature interviewed Caroline Crocker, a molecular microbiologist at George Mason University. Because "she mentioned intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell-biology course... she has been barred by her department from teaching both evolution and intelligent design." Other skeptics of Darwinism choose to keep silent. When Nature approached another researcher, he refused to speak for fear of hurting his chance to get tenure.

If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism, the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation, is the acid test of scientific validity.

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 23

(23)
duane bass,
December 8, 2007 9:40 AM

politically correct humor

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the 'beginning.'""Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God."Well, " says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.""Well, that's interesting. Show Me."So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil."Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God,"get your own dirt."

(22)
Anonymous,
November 20, 2005 12:00 AM

Darwinism or intelligent design or both?

I don't deny the possibilty that evolution might be part of the creative process of our creator or that Darwinism might not even prove the conversion of one species to another. But, I do know that I would and will always prefer a world that excludes Darwin, if necessary, over a world that denies the existence of God. I can live without Darwin. Nobody can survive for long without God.

(21)
Gregory Koshkin,
October 24, 2005 12:00 AM

creation argument is a waste of time; lets look to historical evidence instead

Events like the American Revolution or Caesar's battles are NOT questioned historical events. Why? Because masses witnessed them, and all these masses transmitted the same unanimous version of the event. The same can be said of Judaism, the only religion which lays claim to national revelation, i.e. Mount Sinai Event. Lets not waste time on proving Creationism or Evolution. Instead, lets look back at a unique historical event that took place 3300 years ago. This historical event brings with it ethics and responsibilities man must observe. Proving/disproving creationism/evolution shouldnt waste too much time. We have proof of G-d via history, no faith needed. G-d may have created the world in 6 days or 150000000000 years. Either way, we can look back at an event that cannot be disproved by any rational train of thought and from there on, we are obligated to perfect ourselves.

(20)
Michael Makovi,
October 19, 2005 12:00 AM

Another thing about non-evolutionist scientists

Adding to what Joe said about the fact that scientists must believe in evolution:

Suppose a Jew says, "I know that the Torah says that pig is kosher, but I just disagree with that ONE point of Torah. Everything else, I agree with". He is technically an apostate. Why? It's not that kashrut is in and of itself so important, but it's that he has, by questioning that one law, opposed the the entire infrastructure, because he is questioning G-d's right to rule.

Similar, if a scientist opposes evolution on faith, he has opposed the basis of science, which is the scientific method: if a hypothesis (idea) fits the evidence, it is a theory. Evolution fits this, so according to the scientific method, evolution is fact until proven wrong. So if he opposes evolution on his personal belief, he has undermined and questioned the whole basis of science. Of course, if he questions evidence on the grounds that it doesn't fit evidence, he is okay (just as I can question a Torah law on the grounds that the verse has been misinterpreted), as long as he doesn't espouse something as fact that doesn't fit the scientific method.

(19)
Joe,
October 18, 2005 12:00 AM

Please remember we hold it as an article of faith that Hashem has no hand.

A theory is not a choice. It is a deduction based on evidence, and opinions (mine, yours, anyone's) are utterly meaningless. The only thing that matters is the observation and consistent analysis of nature. If you do not like nature, and natural laws, do not blame scientists. We just work here. You should take your complaints to the Boss. Do you really think that the laws of nature were made up by man? Who made things this way? This is not a game of trying to make people compromise. If you want to say that Hashem made the world this way, no scientist could prove you wrong. I said that myself, but that also does not help with understanding *physical* realities.

Please remember we hold it as an article of faith that Hashem has no hand. What that means, in this context, is that it will *never* be possible to do an experiment on our incoporeal G-d. What that also means is that any statement about God is automatically not a candidate for a theory. That's it. Game over. Pigs will never be kosher, and 2+2 will never sum to 5, for exactly the same reason. The assertion does not, and *can not* fit the required definition.

This is where I wish to vent some frustration. A Jew hopefully would not go to a rabbi and offer opinions about about a difficult passage of Talmud if he had never studied Talmud. He hopefully wouldn't lecture a rabbi about changing the Torah to suit his opinions *and* without even having tried to understand Torah. Where do lay people get the chutzpa to comment about science? Opinions are like bottoms, everyone has one, but that does not make an opinion into a theory, or all views equally valid.

Now to adress some other points raised. We do see species evolving into others. Consider anti-biotic resistant bacteria strains. That's evolution in action baby, and it is happening in our lifetime. You also better hope that kids get good science education and learn to deal with them, because they are very good at killing people.

Further, scientists do tend to like the embryonic gill argument. Why? because it hearkens to genes that are still with us from our earliest ancestors.

Some here also seem to be under the impression that it is possible to be a scientist and not accept the facts of evolution. I deduce this from the implied distinction made by saying Darwinists and Evolutionists. Well sorry, all scientists fit that category. Anyone who denies the essential validity of a theory (without physical evidence no less!) is called a non-scientist, in much the same way that anyone who denies that Hashem is in charge, is a non-rabbi.

As to the first replicator, we do not know how that happened. Truth. But that does not invalidate the theory. Consider a murder mystery. A police officer looking at a corpse, that had been shot 12 times in the back, does not need to know the engaging chemistry that made the bullets fly, to know that there was a murder. How the first replicator happened is an ongoing and open question. We do not know the answer, but we have a very good idea about what happened later.

Another quick vent of frustration. If there are frum Jews out there who want to throw their lots in with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, that is on your watch, but please try not to do it publicly. Jews have a reputation for being intelligent and well educated. You are bringing the Tribe down.

(18)
stan frank,
October 15, 2005 12:00 AM

why do we must choose

As a science graduate I can live with both theories. We as thinking people, why must we for or against these thoughts? Lets accomodate the religious as well as the Darwinists & continue to search for the truth. Perhaps we are both right.

(17)
Michael Makovi,
October 15, 2005 12:00 AM

Author doesn't know what science says

Anyone who says "evolution is only a theory" doesn't know what a scientific theory is.

Such a theory is based on observable evidence. If new evidence is found (that wasn't known when the theory was first made), the theory must agree with the new evidence, or else the theory is wrong.

For example, let's take the theory that the earth orbits around the sun: Copernicus based this idea on observations he made of the sky. Others came later, and with new observations, made ammendations to this theory (for example, Copernicus thought the planetory orbits were circles, but they are actually ellipses - ovals). This is a theory because it was based on evidence and explains new evidence.

The theory of evolution definitely is based on evidence, and it helps explain certain phenomena discovered later, such as human embryos growing gills during a short part of their development (as was previously mentioned). If you look at pictures of embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, you will notice that the closer two creatures are on that continuum, the more alike they appear during development, and for longer too. This corroberates evolution: they appear similar because they developed from common roots, and the closer they are to common roots, the more similar they appear, especially during development.

Intelligent Design is not based on evidence, but rather on a religious belief. Yes, it does raise scientific objections to evolution, such as the fact that one species has never been seen evolving into another, but while this is credible opposition to evolution that must be reconcilable with evolution if evolution is to be correct, it does not prove evolution wrong or ID right. It is simply another piece of evidence to be fit into its place in the puzzle.

ID certainly has merits. I myself believe that G-d to some degree or another guides the development of species. But this belief of mine is not based on observable evidence, but rather on a religious belief.

Anyone can have a belief about anything (such as believing in a spaghetti monster), but it is only science if it is based on scientifically measurable evidence and observation. What if I think the heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system is wrong? What if I think schools should offer alternative viewpoints? Should they now teach the disproven alternative of an Earth-centered solar system? If ID is given a place in the classroom, then so should the Earth-centered model. After all, what I believe, on the same religious grounds that an ID believer does, that the heliocentric model goes against my religion?

(16)
Ari,
October 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Joe

Even evolutionists think the proof that embryos have "gills" is a bunch of nonsense. However before we can even talk about evolution we have to deal with the origin of life, the simplest has 250 genes. You want to compare evolution with the theory of gravity and can't explain the simplest lifeform? Natural selection can't even theoretically work without a reproducing organism.

As former atheist Antony Flew wrote "...It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." see
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

(15)
Joe,
October 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Response to some of the comments (please read this one!)

In reviewing these comments, I am thrilled that most of my coreligionists have a solid understanding of the facts. I am saddened however at some of the other responses.

The "scientists debate over the exact age of things argument" is a particularly depressing manifestation of poor science education. Is the Earth 4,800,000,000 years old (highest estimate based on availible analysis) or 4,100,000,000 years old (lowest estimate based on availible analysis)? Well, people are working on it. The point is that the lowest valid estimate is still very, very much bigger than 5766 years. Just because some thing isn't pinned down to the microsecond doesn't make what we do know false. Further, if the age of the Earth is a tough scientific problem, then the distance to stars is much more easy, particularly if they are "close by."

There are many, many very well measured stars that are further than 6000 light years away, and that means that the light that we see is older than 6000 years.

Again, so someone wants to hold on to a narrow interpretation of Bereshith. O.K. but the vast majority of the observable universe is against your view by it's very visibility.

This brings me to the second response that sees it as "common sense" that Hashem made the universe old, with the clocks already advanced so to speak. If you want to believe Hashem, who is truth, set up the entire observable universe as a lie, to fool us, what you are preaching is not Judaism, but rather the Gnostic Heresy of the early Christain Church. Hey, I'm all for religious tolerence, but remember that
you are not talking science. Further if He did make it old, such that we can not tell the difference in any way - so what? He did so, *so perfectly* that our science still works - and now we are debating angles and pinheads. The old Earth argument is not "common sense." It is actually fatuous, and even if it were true, it changes nothing - except perhaps to bring questions as to wether or not one can trust Hashem.

The real failing here is of our community to realise that important powers are given to man through his understanding of nature. Science does not answer "should", it only answers "what".

We are very much in need, as a world, of Torah guidance, on how to use capabilities that our ancestors would have only imagined to be the direct action of Hashem Himself.

Unfortunately, the Rabbinate is in no position whatsoever to poskin on science it does not even remotely understand. This is a great tragedy. The need for real guidance gets more pronounced each year. Too many of those spiritually big enough to say what desperately needs to be said are still worried if electricity is fire. BTW it isn't.

(14)
Jose Pineda,
October 14, 2005 12:00 AM

Modern Science is more akin to religion...

than modern scientists would dare admit.

I myself are Noahide and believe in HaShem, yet I find no contradiction believing also in evolution - it's just I believe it was His hand, not just blind random, which paved the way. Or was it His hand disguised as random? Even most miracles (including the ones at Egypt) can be more or less explained using natural laws...

Modern science, as studied and practiced, is aproching too much on religion. Every now and then when I find someone who laugh at people who don't believe in evolution, I remind them the wise words of great philosopher Feyerabend: "I don't want to propose a new scientific method - each and every method, even the most obvious, has it's limits". He demonstrated it clearly in his books, conferences and teachings. The end of "Against the method" resumes his discoverings: "the only consistent principle in science as applied by scientists is: everything goes"

Some people believe when scientists affirm X, Y or Z theory is because that is THE ULTIMATE REVEALED TRUTH (in capitals) - yet it is not. It's just the best guess, the model best explains data. The one most probable of being the truth. Perhaps 99.99%. But it could also be incorret: no theory has predicted accurately all observable phenomena, especially at their end of life, but sometimes even at their birthing (remember Newton's troubles with Mercury's precession, today's troubles with dark matter trying to explain galaxies movements, the centuries long discussion about whether light is wave or particle, etc.)

Popper thought once you find an error in a theory it invalidates it once and forever (falsationism). However, in practice scientists and we "lay men" still keep using them - why? Because, as his disciple Lakatos discovered "a flawed theory is better than no theory at all" - science advances precisely when scientists try to fill the "gaps" in theory, or it's apparent contradictions with reality. Some times they refine the model. Some times they find a new model which better predicts data.

It may be that God really played us all a trick - that he put fossils on Earth of animals never lived, sediments indicating millions of years of erosion that never really happened, etc. at creation time. However, this theory accurately predicts a lot of facts from world right now, and I say it is worth teaching about as perhaps 99.999% truth.

What we ALL should be against is teaching that science has all The Truth, or that a particular reading of the Bible is The Truth, and also we should fight the notion that any of them shouldn't be contested.

(13)
Zachary Kessin,
October 12, 2005 12:00 AM

Also a Theory

Did you also refuse to teach the theory of Gravity? How about relativity? Quantum Mechanics? Classical Electrodynamcis? Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), how about Theormodyamics? Or Newton's laws of motion? All of the above are "Just theories". Of course they are very well validated theories, but theories none the less

(12)
Yitzi Tuvel,
October 11, 2005 12:00 AM

"Just a Theory"

But no-one I know refuses to teach Newton because of that. Why not?

(11)
Peter Gaffney,
October 11, 2005 12:00 AM

the ole' "it's just a theory" objection

The commentator who insists upon teaching "facts" not "theory" misunderstands the terminology of science. As a scientific term, a "theory" is not mere speculation; it is a firmly-grounded explanation for phenomena. ALL scientific understanding is couched in terms of theory; the word does not imply any lack of hard evidence.

Another commentator suggests that the world was created by God several thousand years ago but with the appearance of a planet "half a million" (I believe 4.5 billion years is close to scientists' current estimate of the Earth's age) years old. Well, there is no doubt that God COULD have tricked us this way, if He'd chosen to -- He COULD have seeded the ground with the fossil remains of animals which never actually lived, and created light waves already in transit from stars millions of lightyears away... but why? What is time to God that He wouldn't have let the whole history of the universe spin out in real time? Why the rush? To me, this is a very unsatisfying conjecture, whose only achievement is that it allows us to take the six days of Creation as being ordinary 24-hour days.

(10)
Joe,
October 11, 2005 12:00 AM

please consider this...

First off, I am a physicist, and I have studied at Aish in Jerusalem. I believe in Hashem so please believe that my criticisms of this article are not coming from someone who hates religion, or is having some kneejerk reaction to questioning of established scientific dogma.

O.K ?

So where to start with everything that is wrong here.... How about first with a paraphrase of the Rambam. "Torah can not be false, what is proven to be true can not be false, so if your understanding of Torah contradicts what is proven to be true, the only thing that can possibly be wrong is your understanding of Torah." Another Rambam to keep in mind, which all people who want to be intellectually honest, must keep in mind; "we must accept the truth no matter what its source."

Now onto the point of FSM, Pastafarianism etc, which the author completely missed. If one takes away the rules, any rules are valid. Science has rules. There is a way it is done and those rules are the reason why it works. Please also remember that cell phones don't grow on trees. If you believe in the existence of cell phones, you must believe that human beings knew enough to make them. In other words, science really does work.

So what are the rules? First off, there is the whole notion of theory. When a scientist uses the word theory, it is a vastly more loaded word then when a lay person says it. It is just like when a big rabbi says tsaddick. He means a lot more than "a real nice guy".

In the lay world a theory is anything someone believes. Do you believe pink is in this year? Do you believe in a narrow understanding of the first verses of Bereshit? Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The other point is that in science, a theory is not a choice. It is a deduction from evidence. Simply put, if you understand what a theory is, you will see that I.D. does not meet the requirements of a theory any more than pork meets the requirements for kashrut.

In science, a theory meets the following definition and falls within the following constraints:

A theory is a tested, falsafiable, predictive model that explains observed natural phonomenae. Further, for a theory to be valid, it can not contradict known observations.

What does that mean?

Well first off, a model that explains natural phonomenae. I see a rock fall, maybe it's Newtonian gravity, or maybe, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pushing it down with "His Noodly Appendage." O.K. Two explinations, both equally mystical at first blush... and trust me, gravity is a vastly more mysterious thing then pasta!

So what about the rest, well falsifiable, the theory of gravity says the rock will always fall down and accelerate at a certain rate when it does. We go out and look, and low and behold, repetedly, again and again the brick falls at 9.8 m/s^2. If bricks fell at a different rate, then that would be it for the theory of gravity. If they fell up that would be it too. That's tested and falsifiable. How do I do an experiment on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And If you are really following, how do I do an experiment on Hashem?

Predictive: If the theory of gravity is correct, with that one over "r" squared central force business then I can look at a comet, plot it's orbit and predict that it will be back at this time apearing in that part of the sky. This is of course how Halley's comet got it's name. If it didn't show up on time, the theory would have been thrown out. Instead, it got it right and called accurately what would happen. What does I.D. predict about species? What can it say about their form or genetics or behaviour? What can it do to help a doctor find a new treatment?

Evolution on the other hand gets it right again and again. You might expect, as a prediction of the theorey that human and apes share much of the same genetics. Low and behold, the chimp is genetically 95% the same as we. Hmmm... If the theory predicts that we ultimately evolved out of the oceans, then isn't it interesting that human emrbyos have gills for a little while during early pregnancy? Hmmm...

The point is that simply saying Intelligent Design never would have predicted that.

A mature theory has evidence mounting up in its favor left right and center. I could easily write twenty pages of reasons to accept that evolution happened off the top of my head, and I am not even a biologist. A proper biologist could write hundreds of pages.

And that is really that. To a scientist, a theory is a proven fact, by the standards of lay people. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable. There is no evidence behind it, for or against, and it doesn't tell you anything new about the physical world i.e. t is not predictive. ID just does not meet the criteria to be a theory. Thus it does not belong in a science class, any more then conflicting theories of kosher pig belong in the Bais HaMidrash.

And this brings me to a conclusion. Calling scientists Darwinists is as misleading as calling rabbis Kosherists. Evolution is a fact. Hashem did it this way. The only controversy comes from people who are too in love with their own dogmatic understanding of Bereshit to face the mountains of evidence. Now unfortunately, charlatans with titles exist. There were doctors in the employ of tabacco companies that mislead ignorant people with statistics for years. But in the end, guess who was right? No one in the legitimate scientific community doubts the essential validity of evolution. Not because we believe it. Not because we were taught it, but because we were convinced by the evidence.

And that of course is the real point. If you take the rules away, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as good as I.D. or for that matter, a narrow interpretation of Bereshit.

(9)
Peter Preble,
October 11, 2005 12:00 AM

Jacoby's truth

Jacoby states truth when he says that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophical argument, not one subject to verification or disporving by the scientific method. therefore it may belong in a philosophy class, or even possibly in a "philosophy of science" class, but it does not belong in a class that relies on scientific method for it's truth.

(8)
steve bell,
October 10, 2005 12:00 AM

not is a science classroom

a previous writer said, its not a questioin of creationism, intelligent design or evoluition...the Torah is about G-d's question to us about how to make our lives into Heschel's "work of art."

(7)
Barry I Chook,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

Great balance

In these days of the political right holding center stage, and wanting to be the "thought police", it's nice to hear a clear voice of fairness.

(6)
Anonymous,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

Nonscience or nonsence!

The last sentence "It's science", is in error. It is not science. See "Max Black- Critical Thinking,Prentice Hall, 1952,p378 ff", for Scienctific Theory.

(5)
Ray Saperstein,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

Biblical creationism is the point

It generally appears that the people who want to teach "intelligent design" really are seeking to inject a religious viewpoint into the discussion. Afterall, who is the "intelligent Designer"? The intelligent designer is meant to be the Almighty. These people are not in favor of teaching that some advanced race of aliens are the intelligent designers, are they? As an Orthodox Jew, I don't have any problem with acknowledging the Almighty as the intelligent designer, and many books have been written by Jewish scientists that show that Judaism does not have a problem with evolution. What it really boils down to is a choice parents make about the education of their children. If you want your kids to be in a school system that teaches intelligent design, send them to a private religious school of your choice. The teaching of a religious belief in public school is simply inappropriate.

(4)
Anonymous,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

one step further -2 thoughts

Actually, variations within species that are considered functional mutations are 100% impossible scientifically. Mutatins are always, in all provable cases, degenerative, not generative. (
Also, the age of the earth varies by millions, and even, billions of years depending which current scientist's calculations are in vogue-variations of so many years should make real scientists questions the relevancy of carbon dating.
For further reading, even for those whose total belief in Torah needs no "scientific" boost, go see B'Or Ha'Torah's wonderful book store and web site where prominent scientists discuss these very issues.
Have a Good Year.

(3)
Anonymous,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

When I was assigned to teach Darwinism in my classroom (intermediate school) I refused on the basis that it is a THEORY--it has never been proven to be false or true and "I teach facts, not speculation". I was excused from teaching (Chapter 1) and I started with Chapter 2. When a fellow faculty member heard about this, she sneered, "So you believe in the Bible story?", to which I calmly asked, "Which one--the first story, or the second?" End of discussion.

(2)
Aaron Solomon Adelman,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

Article misunderstands intelligent design

I am extremely disappointed in the article "A Timeless Argument about Creation" and in the fact that you posted it, since it misunderstands intelligent design completely. Creationism lost out scientifically because it is not consistent with the evidence we have of the Earth's past. Rather than try to come to terms with current knowledge, as past greats such as 'Ibn `Ezra' and Rambam did in their own time, creationists have tried to subvert science in public relations and in the courts. "Intelligent design" is just a pseudosecular manifestation of this which does not explicitly state the designer of all life is God. Considering that all physical reality is a manifestation of HashShem's will, assuming that a simplistic interpretation of the first two parashoth of Bere'shith is infallible is tantamount to claiming that HashShem is wrong or has deliberately created traces of a past that never happened. It is about time that people reconciled themselves to living in the world that HashShem actually put us in, started treating Parashath Bere'shith and Parashath Noah as the esoteric material they are, and started worrying about real problems, such as how to make this world a better place or how to learn Torah better. HashShem gave us enough wisdom to realize that long-held philosophical notions such as Aristotle's cosmology and the doctrine of the four elements are wrong; it is time we used this knowledge to do away with creationism as well and recognize that what makes humanity special is not the untenable notion that we are completely different from the rest of the natural world but rather the miracle that we can be holy, worthy beings even though we are animals.

(1)
George Best,
October 9, 2005 12:00 AM

Age of the Earth

Evolutionists often use the age of the earth as proof of there theory. What most people do not understand, When God the creator made this planet and the universe He made it a certain age. It says in the Bible He created evey thing in six days. No problem, when man was created, was he a newborn baby? Was he a child? Or was he a fully grown man? Common sense would indicate that an inteligent creator would create a man who could think for himself, act for his own good and welfare. If man was created at this age, why not the earth? God knew that it takes so many thousands of years to turn trees into oil, coal, etc, would not such an inteligent creator create a planet that was fully matured, with all the minerals, and things in the earths crust we take for granted. Trees fully grown, ie some trees started life maybe five hundred years old, some maybe twenty, some maybe just saplings. the whole planet and universe was created as a mature creation. It was brand new, but it was created maybe a half a million years old about seven to nine thousand years ago. It is not rocket science, just common sense.

I’m wondering what happened to the House of David. After the end of the Kingdom of Judah was there any memory what happened to King David’s descendants? Is there any family today which can trace its lineage to David – and whom the Messiah might descend from?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Thank you for your good question. There is no question that King David’s descendants are alive today. God promised David through Nathan the Prophet that the monarchy would never depart from his family (II Samuel 7:16). The prophets likewise foretell the ultimate coming of the Messiah, descendant of David, the “branch which will extend from the trunk of Jesse,” who will restore the Davidic dynasty and Israel’s sovereignty (Isaiah 11:1, see also Jeremiah 33:15, Ezekiel 37:25).

King David’s initial dynasty came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian Exile. In an earlier expulsion King Jehoiachin was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, together with his family and several thousand of the Torah scholars and higher classes (II Kings 24:14-16). Eleven years later the Temple was destroyed. The final king of Judah, Jehoiachin’s uncle Zedekiah, was too exiled to Babylonia. He was blinded and his children were executed (II Kings 25:7).

However, Jehoiachin and his descendants did survive in exile. Babylonian cuneiform records actually attest to Jehoiachin and his family receiving food rations from the government. I Chronicles 3:17:24 likewise lists several generations of his descendants (either 9 or 15 generations, depending on the precise interpretation of the verses), which would have extended well into the Second Temple era. (One was the notable Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin, who was one of the leaders of the return to Zion and the construction the Second Temple.)

In Babylonia, the leader of the Jewish community was known as the Reish Galuta (Aramaic for “head of the exile,” called the Exilarch in English). This was a hereditary position recognized by the Babylonian government. Its bearer was generally quite wealthy and powerful, well-connected to the government and wielding much authority over Babylonian Jewry.

According to Jewish tradition, the Exilarch was a direct descendant of Jehoiachin. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 5a) understands Genesis 49:10 – Jacob’s blessing to Judah that “the staff would not be removed from Judah” – as a reference to the Exilarchs in Babylonia, “who would chastise Israel with the staff,” i.e., who exercised temporal authority over the Jewish community. It stands to reason that these descendants of Judah were descendants of David’s house, who would have naturally been the leaders of the Babylonian community, in fulfillment of God’s promise to David that authority would always rest in his descendants.

There is also a chronological work, Seder Olam Zutta (an anonymous text from the early Middle Ages), which lists 39 generations of Exilarchs beginning with Jehoiachin. One of the commentators to Chronicles, the Vilna Gaon, states that the first one was Elionai of I Chronicles 3:23.

The position of Exilarch lasted for many centuries. The Reish Galuta is mentioned quite often in the Talmud. As can be expected, some were quite learned themselves, some deferred to the rabbis for religious matters, while some, especially in the later years, fought them and their authority tooth and nail.

Exilarchs existed well into the Middle Ages, throughout the period of the early medieval scholars known as the Gaonim. The last ones known to history was Hezekiah, who was killed in 1040 by the Babylonian authorities, although he was believed to have had sons who escaped to Iberia. There are likewise later historical references to descendants of the Exilarchs, especially in northern Spain (Catelonia) and southern France (Provence).

Beyond that, there is no concrete evidence as to the whereabouts of King David’s descendants. Supposedly, the great French medieval sage Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzchaki) traced his lineage to King David, although on a maternal line. (In addition, Rashi himself had only daughters.) The same is said of Rabbi Yehuda Loewe of Prague (the Maharal). Since Ashkenazi Jews are so interrelated, this is a tradition, however dubious today, shared by many Ashkenazi Jews.

In any event, we do not need be concerned today how the Messiah son of David will be identified. He will be a prophet, second only to Moses. God Himself will select him and appoint him to his task. And he himself, with his Divine inspiration, will resolve all other matters of Jewish lineage (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 12:3).

Yahrtzeit of Kalonymus Z. Wissotzky, a famous Russian Jewish philanthropist who died in 1904. Wissotzky once owned the tea concession for the Czar's entire military operation. Since the Czar's soldiers numbered in the millions and tea drinking was a daily Russian custom, this concession made Wissotzky very rich. One day, Wissotzky was approached by the World Zionist Organization to begin a tea business in Israel. He laughed at this preposterous idea: the market was small, the Turkish bureaucracy was strict, and tea leaves from India were too costly to import. Jewish leaders persisted, and Wissotzky started a small tea company in Israel. After his death, the tea company passed to his heirs. Then in 1917, the communists swept to power in Russia, seizing all of the Wissotzky company's assets. The only business left in their possession was the small tea company in Israel. The family fled Russia, built the Israeli business, and today Wissotzky is a leading brand of tea in Israel, with exports to countries worldwide -- including Russia.

Building by youth may be destructive, while when elders dismantle, it is constructive (Nedarim 40a).

It seems paradoxical, but it is true. We make the most important decisions of our lives when we are young and inexperienced, and our maximum wisdom comes at an age when our lives are essentially behind us, and no decisions of great moment remain to be made.

While the solution to this mystery eludes us, the facts are evident, and we would be wise to adapt to them. When we are young and inexperienced, we can ask our elders for their opinion and then benefit from their wisdom. When their advice does not coincide with what we think is best, we would do ourselves a great service if we deferred to their counsel.

It may not be popular to champion this concept. Although we have emerged from the era of the `60s, when accepting the opinion of anyone over thirty was anathema, the attitude of dismissing older people as antiquated and obsolete has-beens who lack the omniscience of computerized intelligence still lingers on.

Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. We would do well to swallow our youthful pride and benefit from the teachings of the school of experience.

Today I shall...

seek advice from my elders and give more serious consideration to deferring to their advice when it conflicts with my desires.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...